I remember reading that some of those old fire alarm call boxes on street corners would handcuff the person who activated it to avoid prankster activations. Personally I think that was bad. Someone shouldn’t be handcuffed for reporting a fire.
Those “handcuffs” actually detached from the call box. The reason being so the individual can escape. If it was a false alarm, all the PD would have to look for is someone with a huge metal thing on their hands.
Reminds me of the time in elementary school where they say that if you pulled the alarm you would get ink on your hands.
I heard once that there were some pull stations that had a coat of paint applied over the handle, such that if you pulled it, it would stain your hand.
I’ve never heard of or seen evidence for the theoretical pull station model that shot a jet of ink towards the user, however.
If there were any pulls that could squirt ink on your hands it would be comparable to the Break Glass Pull Stations— a one and done. :lol:
I do seem to recall a discussion regarding a thick ink-like paste that could be applied to the backsides of activation handles on pull stations … the idea being that the person’s hands would be soiled by the ink, and therefore easily identifiable.
While it does not physically spray from the device, there seems to be some roots in reality for the “ink” myth.
I wasn’t talking about it squirting ink. I was talking about something getting all over their hands.
Found some evidence:
But is that a
Reliable Source? Just because you see it in a YouTube video doesn’t necessarily mean it’s reliable (example; people post videos all the time of bogus conspiracy theories on YT and they are the most elaborate bogus stuff…it’s pretty obvious to see those are fake). Pretty sad actually, but unfortunately in this day and age we have to fact check certain things. That videos looks pretty factual though to me. Like Nick and other have said; it would have had to originate from something, but the whole squirting ink thing is a myth.
I don’t know why you nuts are arguing over tamper dye. This stuff has been used in real installations and you can literally buy it on their website. <LINK_TEXT text=“http://www.american-time.com/products-b … ire-alarms”>http://www.american-time.com/products-by-family/specialty-products/fire-alarm-accessories/tamper-dye-for-fire-alarms</LINK_TEXT>
Pretty sure it was tamper dye though everybody said it was ink when it probably wasn’t. I never said it sprayed. I just said you would get ink on your hands. A few pull stations had what I think are ink dye on them, but back then I thought it was just dust.
The dye is certainly legit however it’s rarely used in practice. I have also yet to see any pull stations (or concept designs) that are capable of actively squirting ink. To be honest though, dye seems to be a little inefficient since inspectors would constantly have to be putting gloves on to test the devices and taking the gloves off before touching anything else to prevent it spreading. Stoppers seem just as effective at deterring false alarms.
Which is why I thought that it was dust instead of dye. I only saw it on two pull stations and it looked like powder instead of a dye.
Then it probably was dust lol.
I’ve pulled many pull stations over my past year of work in the fire alarm industry (of course, with the monitoring station on test and usually with audibles disabled) and have yet to have my hands turn blue. It certainly doesn’t seem to be a commonplace thing. I’m hoping if a customer had applied this, they would have the courtesy to inform me before I end up with it stuck to my hands for weeks.
For a while, before I looked it up, I thought it was just a myth.